Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751254AbWB0Ved (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:34:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751265AbWB0Ved (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:34:33 -0500 Received: from rtr.ca ([64.26.128.89]:1695 "EHLO mail.rtr.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751254AbWB0Vec (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:34:32 -0500 Message-ID: <4403704E.4090109@rtr.ca> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:34:06 -0500 From: Mark Lord User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060130 SeaMonkey/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Garzik Cc: David Greaves , Justin Piszcz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, IDE/ATA development list , albertcc@tw.ibm.com, axboe@suse.de, htejun@gmail.com, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: LibPATA code issues / 2.6.15.4 References: <43F2050B.8020006@dgreaves.com> <200602141300.37118.lkml@rtr.ca> <440040B4.8030808@dgreaves.com> <440083B4.3030307@rtr.ca> <4400A1BF.7020109@rtr.ca> <4400B439.8050202@dgreaves.com> <4401122A.3010908@rtr.ca> <44017B4B.3030900@dgreaves.com> <4401B560.40702@rtr.ca> In-Reply-To: <4401B560.40702@rtr.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1610 Lines: 41 Mark Lord wrote: >> Mark Lord wrote: >> >>>> sdb: Current: sense key: Medium Error >>>> Additional sense: Unrecovered read error - auto reallocate failed >>>> end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 398283329 >>>> raid1: Disk failure on sdb2, disabling device. >>>> Operation continuing on 1 devices > .. >>> The command failing above is SCSI WRITE_10, which is being >>> translated into ATA_CMD_WRITE_FUA_EXT by libata. >>> >>> This command fails -- unrecognized by the drive in question. >>> But libata reports it (most incorrectly) as a "medium error", >>> and the drive is taken out of service from its RAID. >>> >>> Bad, bad, and worse. .. hold off on 2.6.16 because of this or not? > > Well, no doubt whatsoever about it being a "regression", > since the FUA code is *new* in 2.6.16 (not present in 2.6.15). > > The FUA code should either get fixed, or removed from 2.6.16. Actually, now that I've done a little more digging, this FUA stuff is inherently dangerous as implemented. A least a few SATA controllers including pipelines and whatnot that rely upon recognizing the (S)ATA opcodes being using. And I sincerely doubt that any of those will recognize the very newish (and aptly named..) FUA opcodes. These may be unsafe in general, unless we tag controllers as FUA-capable and NON-FUA-capable, in addition to tagging the drives. :/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/